the thing is, these cycles take a long time to play out, most of a lifetime, and so they're hard to grasp for many people...

"But why is it any more immoral than farmers profiting from peoples’ hunger?"

weeeell, that's immoral too, bub, and we intend to stamp it out. in fact any profit is bad, and everyone should work for the common good. "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!" ["from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need"]*

*except of course for those that oversee everything, they are exempt. Like Congress is exempt from Obamacare.

@SwissAD: ""Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!" ["from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need"]*"

That's an ideal to which everyone should aspire. As long as I'm the one who gets to decide what people's abilities and needs are.

You should be terrified of that. You may find yourself in the position of: food, housing, healthcare - pick any two.

From Frank's NYT Article:

Like economists in most other countries, they tend to be skeptical of large bureaucracies.

To which economists is he referring?

An economist's skepticism of large bureaucracies really depends upon his economic school of thought. Those who advocate a more socialistic economic model will actually advocate larger bureaucracies.

[Sweden's] infant mortality rate, for example, was recently less than half that of the United States.

This trope has been rebutted so many times, it's becoming tiresome.

The infant mortality rate is actually calculated differently by country. Many countries leave out children who died with a few days of birth or children who were born with little chance or no to live more than a few days. Some wait weeks to count a birth as successful. The US counts every live birth at the moment of birth.

One told me that whereas in the United States a wealthy or well-insured patient might schedule a hip replacement with only a week’s notice, in Sweden the wait could be as long as three months. He described such waits as a design feature, noting that they allowed facilities to be used at consistently high capacity, and thus more efficiently.

So, scarcity is being referred to as efficiency? It's not a bug, it's a feature.

And notice the dig that only "wealthy or well-insured" patients in the US can get care quickly.

From Bernpaintner's rebuttal:

Unless you are suffocating or are hemorrhaging profusely, you should expect to wait 5-7 hours to see a doctor [in a Swedish hospital emergency room].

I recently had a chance to experience government-provided emergency healthcare and compare it to my insurance-provided emergency healthcare.

I rushed to the nearest hospital (not in my plan) with a non-life-threatening emergency. There was no parking, so I parked at a nearby office and hoped I didn't get a ticket. I waited in line, was entered into the system and saw a nurse for triage.

After going over my symptoms, I told her I had a medical plan and told her which one. She told me confidentially that unless I thought I was in danger of needing immediate medical assistance (fainting, heart attack, etc.), I should drive two towns over to my provider's hospital.

She explained that this hospital was the county's medicare (government-provided medical care) hospital and my wait time would be 3-4 hours at a minimum. There were no seats available in the spacious waiting room and many people standing in the hallway.

I drove over to my provider's emergency room, where I was able to park in the hospital's parking garage. The waiting room was empty and I was seen immediately by a doctor and given multiple tests to determine the cause of my distress. The tests took a couple of hours. Diagnosed, medicated, and tested, I was sent home with a regular doctor visit the next day.

The government hospital would have taken at least 3-4 hours just to get me to the doctor, another 2-3 hours for tests (assuming there wasn't a line of people in front of me waiting to be tested because the machine was being utilized efficiently), and heaven only knows on what day and time my follow-up visit could have been scheduled.

And Obama wants us to be excited to switch to government-provided care?

The politicians have private health care, though, naturally paid for by taxpayers. Apparently they are such special people that the healthcare systems they have designed for others are not good enough for them.

Of course they do. They will here, too.

The thing is, these cycles take a long time to play out, most of a lifetime, and so they're hard to grasp for many people... SwissArmyD at July 10, 2013 10:13 AM

If you ever hear someone say that point out radial keratotomy was "invented" in 1974. It became really popular in the late 80's and now we're up to LASIK. And it is getting cheaper and more widespread all the time.

Then there is gastric bypass and now we have lap-band surgery. That is about a 20 year cycle.

So you can see it, but it is years, not a lifetime.

Hey, wake up:

If you think Federal involvement in health care is anything good, then you must shut your mouth about the handling of nuclear waste, the operation at Guantanamo, troops in the Middle East...

Because the same process you admire in The Affordable Health Care Act governs those today. I wouldn't want you to be inconsistent or irrational.

I can't get a $9000 printer fixed at my Federal contractor "because it's over five years old, and something else might break". If I were outside the gate of my Federal facility, dozens of vendors would fight for my $200 for a logic board.

Guess what: these same people are going to decide when you get dialysis, a knee replacement... even anesthetics.

(Irony: the new printer I was forced to buy broke after just two hours of operation. That doesn't matter, because the "right" paperwork is filled out. Nice job, idiots.)

Surprised to see that 'Waste would post anything this dumb. He surpassed even my low expectations.

If you think Federal involvement in health care is anything good, then you must shut your mouth about the handling of nuclear waste, the operation at Guantanamo, troops in the Middle East...

So, on the off-chance that someone thinks the Affordable Care Act is essentially a good thing, logic dictates that the government's policies in other unrelated areas are right, too. Even those policies and procedures that were implemented in the previous administration. Policies that the current administration might not even agree with, but has to withdraw gradually, and only after certain things are accomplished, so as to minimize the backlash.

I stand in awe of your staggering (lack of) logic, 'Waste. Invokes this image of you trying to get out of your house without opening the door first, then wondering why you didn't make it outside and what brought on your sudden headache.

Go telephone a pirate and wrap your car around a pole.

So, on the off-chance that someone thinks the Affordable Care Act is essentially a good thing, logic dictates that the government's policies in other unrelated areas are right, too. Even those policies and procedures that were implemented in the previous administration. Policies that the current administration might not even agree with, but has to withdraw gradually, and only after certain things are accomplished, so as to minimize the backlash. -- Patrick at July 10, 2013 6:58 PM

No, I won't say the 16K extra agents at the IRS are not going to be efficient. I'm just going to ask you to name a single federal agency that has been the epitome of efficiency, ever?

The IRS is already yelling uncle for implementing the employer mandate. So that means the IRS is inefficient or your hero, Obama, ordered them to delay it.

Please point out which way I'm wrong.

"Guess what: these same people are going to decide when you get dialysis, a knee replacement... even anesthetics."

Aren't insurance companies the same way? When shit hits the fan don't many go bankrupt anyways? Or backtrack from agreements?

I don't think our government would be good with healthcare. And i want employers out of it. I want health insurance to be like car insurance. But I don't trust health insurance companies either.

Sweden is a great place for various reasons. I think many Euro countries have great living standards (Finland, Denmark, etc.) I know not ALL, I'm quite aware of Europes situation.

But what they can do is not what we can do ok? It's that simple. A tiny country vs a big ass diverse nation that supports intelligence and military worldwide is just not going to be the same.

Nice jerk, Patrick. Not just your knee, either.

But I knew you'd do that. No one can get away with calling for you to be consistent.

If you can show a difference between administrators who suffer no change in pay or status for the failure of those Federal programs, I'll kiss your ass. Not happening.

Because that's the principle involved, and you have a vast, undeniable blindness to the root causes of the failure of such campaigns to produce the same sort of service that stellar private industries do routinely.

I'm not sure if you have a need for a nanny or what, but you sure need to think everything will be A-OK.

I notice you don't have a solution. At all.

By the way, Ppen: health insurers have the SAME affliction. They, like Federal agents who cannot be fired for not providing service, are people with their hands out for your money without actually treating you. That they have a duty to provide a profit to their shareholders SHOULD be a wakeup call to a few things:
1) What you want for treatment will not be what you get when you do not PAY;
2) You do not get to command unlimited funds from other people;
3) The entire purpose of payment plans is to see that doctors get paid - not to treat you.

"Aren't insurance companies the same way? When shit hits the fan don't many go bankrupt anyways? Or backtrack from agreements?"

Maybe, but at least in that case you might have some legal recourse. If a government agency mistreats you, who do you sue?

Know how to identify the dumbest beast in the room?

Look for the one who expects a say when they don't pay.

If you don't pay, you're not a customer - you're a commodity.

Maybe, but at least in that case you might have some legal recourse. If a government agency mistreats you, who do you sue?

Don't count on it. Insurance companies have much, much deeper pockets than you do, and all your spare cash will be going to pay the medical bills your supposedly good insurance didn't cover.

f you don't pay, you're not a customer - you're a commodity.

Thus the saying, "You can't have representation without taxation."

'Waste: Know how to identify the dumbest beast in the room?

The one who thinks agreeing with one government policy means that you have to agree with all of them.

I'm just going to ask you to name a single federal agency that has been the epitome of efficiency, ever?

Like there's a single industry in the private sector that could meet that standard.

For the record, I support Federal Prisons. The private sector equivalent resulted in judges who took cash for kids.

Like there's a single industry in the private sector that could meet that standard.
Ideally, these industries would fold due to inefficiency. If they are artificially kept alive, like the former SU or China under the great leap forward, the whole state collapses.

"The one who thinks agreeing with one government policy means that you have to agree with all of them."

Not what you've done. That's why I cite your blindness.

It's not a governmental policy, but a feature of bureaucracy, which unites Federal and state programs in failure: the pay of administrators is not tied to their performance.

It's error carried forward - epitomized by your blaming luj (and several others) - for not understanding that your post didn't say what they read. If the speaker is not understood, it is the speaker's duty to make things clear to the audience. "Communication" does not mean repeating yourself and expecting a different result.

And that is why your butt remains lip-free.

Like there's a single industry in the private sector that could meet that standard.

How does agency equate to industry?

For the record, I support Federal Prisons. The private sector equivalent resulted in judges who took cash for kids. -- Patrick at July 11, 2013 8:22 AM

The federal prison system may work overall, but that doesn't mean they are paragons of virtue.

Let's rephrase the question:

Name a government agency that you want in your life day after day; that has always made your life better?

Coming from a country that provides free healthcare, I have a question. It is not smart-assery, but an attempt to understand the mindset.

Why are you willing to pay taxes for roads, schools, military, etc, but not healthcare?

I understand that there is an unwillingness to pay for those who do not wish to pay for those who contribute nothing. However, do you not pay for roads that welfare recipients use? Does the military not defend those on welfare?

While it does raise taxes signifiucantly, it also ensures that no person should go without healthcare.

Someone please to be 'esplainin?

Why are you willing to pay taxes for roads, schools, military, etc, but not healthcare? -- wtf at July 11, 2013 8:36 PM

The military is a Constitutional requirement. The roads and schools are both extra-Constitutional but for right now they are entrenched already from an earlier time.

Obamacare is the latest and most blatant current example. What has to happen is to walk back Obamacare, then the rest. If we could repeal the 16th amendment, it would cripple a lot of this.

"Why are you willing to pay taxes for roads, schools, military, etc, but not healthcare?"

wtf, each of those has its problems, but look at it this way for an example.

You see that some localities have private contractors building roads. Some of them are very good, indeed, new construction techniques are developed. You notice that not all communities can afford these big roads.

Ignoring the plain fact that you don't need Interstates between Hooterville and Mayberry, you realize that you could Federalize ALL road construction by requiring new standards - which have real prison time for those who desire to use a different construction company.

You establish a new cadré of bureaucrats to determine who gets to drive, when they get to drive, and even whether they get a road to their intended destination - and these bureaucrats have nothing whatsoever to do with asphalt.

Control is your goal. Not pavement.

Mao killed maybe FORTY MILLION of his own people in stupidity driven from absolute authority, his public obeying his edicts to and beyond the point of starvation. Mandating error is the hallmark of the American healthcare plan.

Thanks guys, I might not agree, but I understand a little more now.

Coming from within the Canadian healthcare system, I can honestly say it is a comedy of errors. However, I would rather have free healthcare for all and pay for the fuck ups rather than bankrupt people for illnesses that are absolutely not their fault.

I will partially agree with Amy however. I am against OHIP providing free care for those with social diseases, in addition to free abortions, free drug treatment programs, and needle exchanges, etc.

It drives me absolutely BATSHIT that drug addicts get free needles and other supplies, but diabetics must pay for those supplies as they are not covered FOR THEM under OHIP. I can't tell you how many times I've had a diabetic patient yell at me for charging them. But just down the street crackheads get them for FREE!!!

(Contrary to popular belief, although we do receive "free" healthcare, not all services are covered. You must go to a private insurer to make up the difference.)

And Rad, the Harper and Cretien administrations could give you guys LESSONS on mandating error.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/22/ornge-ontario-air-ambulance-mcguinty-liberals_n_1372626.html

Don't even get me started.